DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Fillipis et al. WO2018/165827 (Pub No. US 2020/0079979 A1 is utilized as an equivalent for the citation below), and in view of Mussig et al. US 2011/0104488 A1.
De Fillipis teaches water-based pressure sensitive adhesive compositions (title), with improved adhesion and cohesion (para [0001]).
Mussig also teaches pressure-sensitive adhesives (title).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 6-7, De Fillipis teaches (paras [0009]-[0012]) a water-based pressure sensitive adhesive composition, comprising:
an acrylic emulsion with a Tg range of -50 to -30° C (para [0012]), (instant claim 4), where a surfactant is utilized to form the emulsion droplets where the monomers are polymerized, which result in polymer particles (para [0011]), which corresponds to applicant’s (A) acrylic dispersion. The pressure sensitive adhesion additionally blended with an ethylene copolymer emulsion (which comprises emulsified particles) and a dispersant (para [0009] and reference claims 16 and 19). De Fillipis notes that the ethylene copolymer can include acrylic acid as a comonomer but is silent on the incorporation of an acrylate. An artisan skilled in the art would look to analogous reference Mussig who also teaches pressure sensitive adhesives to further optimize the adhesive composition. Mussig discloses terpolymer (para [0062]) which includes 89 wt% ethylene, 4 wt% acrylic acid and 7wt% n-butyl acrylate, with melt index 7g/10min, which meets applicant’s ethylene ester polymer (instant claims 6-7).
Advantageously, Mussig provides the motivation to create the ethylene ester copolymer which include both n-butyl acrylate and acrylic acid as comonomers, since these polymers structures demonstrate improved cohesion and improved bond strength to both polar and non-polar substrates (para [0118] and Results para [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the ethylene copolymer dispersion of De Fillipis with the n-butyl acrylate comonomer as taught by Mussig for the same application of creating a pressure sensitive adhesive with improved cohesion and with the ability to bond to both polar and non-polar substrates.
Regarding claims 2-3, De Fillipis teaches (reference claim 3) that the acrylic emulsion comprises copolymer comprising polymerized monomers which include acrylic acid and styrene, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 9, De Fillipis teaches (Table 1, line 4) an anionic surfactant, which meets applicant’s dispersant requirement.
Regarding claim 10, De Fillipis teaches (para [0029]) a neutralizing agent, meeting the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 11, as discussed when addressing claim 1, De Fillipis in view of Mussig, teach the required water-based pressure sensitive adhesive composition. De Fillipis discloses 75 to 99 wt% of the acrylic dispersion, corresponding to (A) (para [0012]) and 2-3 wt% of ethylene copolymer emulsion ([0022]), corresponding to (B), thus rendering the claimed requirement obvious.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed when addressing claim 1, De Fillipis in view of Mussig, teach the required water-based pressure sensitive adhesive composition. De Fillipis teaches (para [0048]) a laminate (article) comprising a polypropylene substrate and a layer of pressure sensitive adhesive, meeting the claimed requirement.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Fillipis et al and in view of Mussig et al., as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Moncla et al. US 2007/0292705 A1.
Regarding claim 5, De Fillipis (and Mussig) does not provide the emulsion particle size of the ethylene copolymer, however reference Moncla who teaches polyethylene based polymer dispersion for adhesive coating applications (para [0143] and [0144]) recommends volume average particle size of less than 1 micron, such as 0.56 micron [para [0206]) in order to achieve transparency (para [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have optimized the ethylene copolymer emulsion volume average particle size of De Fillipis in view of Mussig to 1 micron as taught by Moncla for the same application of creating a pressure sensitive adhesive with improved transparency.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Fillipis et al, and in view of Mussig et al., as applied to claim 1 and with evidentiary support reference Technical Data Sheet Lucalen A2910M.
Regarding claim 8, Mussig teaches (para [0062]) ethylene ester copolymer Lucalen A 2910M which has a density of 0.927 g/cc, and Tm of 96 oC, which meet the claimed density and Tm. Mussig does not provide the Vicat softening point, however the evidentiary support reference Technical Data Sheet Lucalen A2910M (page 1, Table) teaches Vicat softening point of 72 oC, which meets the claimed requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of combination of De Fillipis and Mussig, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi (Riviere) Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197
(toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HEIDI R KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights